New threads (topics) in the Thunderblogs/Multimedia forum are only to be initiated by Forum Administrators. This is the place for users to comment on or discuss aspects of any individual Thunderblog or Thunderbolts multimedia post.

Gravity is the most familiar force. We are subject to it every day of our lives. Newton gave us his ‘law of gravity,’ which describes its effect but doesn’t explain it. “I frame no hypotheses,” he wrote. Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his "postulates." Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation! ... [More...]

We were totally amused when the "Big Bang" guys coughed up "dark" matter to try to get out of the corner into which they had painted themselves on the Bohr pool table atomic model most of us learned in highschool. Tesla and Mme. Blavatsky must have been spinning in their graves. How could these bangsters look at themselves in the mirror each morning with the aether staring them right in the face. This essay was a very clear and dynamic pointer from which the guys at CERN had better consider changing direction.

Their 17 mile ring of multi-billion dollar mandalas may be facinating radial kelidescopes to these mad scientists, but their moonbat Hadron Collider will generate more questions than it will answer which is typical for the direction in which they are headed. They will again end up behind the eight ball.

Hello respected scientists, I can not thank you enough for the work you are doing to advance real science. Concerning "electric gravity", I feel that the idea that radaily alligned dipoles induce the electric field is incorrect. I think that is backwards, and actually the electric field induces the allignment. I have this notion that charge flows towards areas with no charge, "collections of nutral particals" and that a small current is produced that way we call gravity. to sum up my thoughts, I'll use a qwuote that stuck in my mind, "Todays nutral particals are yesterdays sunlight".Mark.

Hi Michael, thank you, I think I understand now that a electric current produces a magnetic field, so that means a magnetic current produces an electric field right? So the electric universe could just as easily be called the magnetic universe. To go back to the idea that charge moves form space into nutral matter, true it may not fly but, I just saw this video and it freaked me out. It claims the Earth is expanding to explain plate techtonics. I would not completely exclude subduction as such, but if sunlight becomes matter one should expect matter to increase as it "absorbs" energy. here is the link, I hope it works.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAIC ... 2_bbpp.htmMark

Mark Hinton wrote:I think I understand now that a electric current produces a magnetic field, so that means a magnetic current produces an electric field right?

Personally, I would like to frame a question more like...:

If electric currents produce magnetic fields, one is thereby saying that relatively to an observer moving charge carriers, each carrying a electric field/charge, makes the observer experience an magnetic field. But when the observer is moving relatively to an magnetic field, will he then experience/measure an electric field?orDo we experience the magnetic field as electric field and the electric field as magnetic field simply and solely for reason of the relative motion?

The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

I think I understand now that a electric current produces a magnetic field, so that means a magnetic current produces an electric field right? So the electric universe could just as easily be called the magnetic universe.

Perhaps it would be easier for a non expert like myself to explain what I know of this (from my reading of the EU literature) to another non expert. You cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current. If you find a magnetic field (around a celestial object, for example) there has to be an electric current(s) that is responsible for that magnetic field. I suppose that you could call it a magnetic (or Electro-magnetic) universe, but that would not be as good a name...Electric Universe is much better "A rose by any other name would still smell the same..."

Mark Hinton wrote:Hi Michael, thank you, I think I understand now that a electric current produces a magnetic field, so that means a magnetic current produces an electric field right?

Well, not precisely. IE, "magnetic current" doesn't quite make sense physically. The whole topic is a bit complex (I'm still getting a grasp on it myself). A magnetic field is more or less a force between electric currents. It's still not entirely clear exactly what the "magnetic field" *is* only what it *does.*

But we do sort of have an idea what an electric current (as opposed to an electric field) *is*.

An electric current is a flow of like charged particles in the same direction. Or a flow of unlike charged particles in opposite directions.

While there's perhaps not a "flow" of magnetism, per se, magnetic fields can be used to induce a flow of electricity.

If you run an electric current (flow of charged particles) through a coil of conductive wire, a magnetic field is created around the conductor.

In similar fashion, one can take a permanent magnet, set it in the middle of the same coil of wire, and turn it in specific ways to force the charged particles in the wire to move in an ordered way, thus creating an electric current.

Now, some astronomers (most at this point) have adopted the theoretical usage of a "new physics" process called "frozen-in" field lines. The idea (though I still don't understand the specific maths involved) treats plasma as more or less infinitely conductive (which isn't accurate). In some sleight of hand maths they then say that plasma can "become magnetized," in effect turning plasma into a permanent magnet that "drags" magnetic field lines along with it. However, this was shown some time ago to be incorrect by the guy who more or less invented and popularized the idea. (He basically recanted and said, "nope, I was wrong, you can't do that!")

It's more-or-less because of Alfvén that I think it would be inaccurate to call an electric universe a "magnetic universe." It would seem to me to transpose cause an effect. Electric currents are required in order to produce magnetic fields. Magnetic fields don't stand alone.

While the reverse can in some ways be said to be true, if you have a permanent magnets, plasma is not a permanent magnet and requires that electric currents be present to maintain any magnetic fields seen to emanate from it. That's more or less the point I've tried to make in a couple recent Thunderblog entries. In the end, the root cause of magnetic fields is electric currents (be they in macroscopic circuits, or electrons in more-or-less lockstep orbits around atomic nuclei). It seems logical to talk in terms of the most fundamental units or processes available, as other things that go on are a consequence of the collective behavior of the fundamental units.

My opinion, of course.

Regards,~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law

nick c wrote:You cannot have a magnetic field without an electric current.

If you find a magnetic field (around a celestial object, for example) there has to be an electric current(s) that is responsible for that magnetic field.

That would be more-or-less my assessment of the situation.

While it requires a rethink of "conventional wisdom," it seems to be a logical extrapolated conclusion based upon definitions derived from lab results here on Earth.

I see no reason to invent "new physics" to account for magnetic fields in the cosmos when we know more or less exactly how they're created here. We should use the laws of physics we already know quite well before trying to define new ones that are unnecessary in light of existing knowledge. I'm talking here about both "frozen-in" field lines in plasma and "magnetic reconnection," which appear to have been more-or-less debunked in the lab for some time. Lord only knows why they're still in use (and coming up with confusing results, no less!)...

Regards,~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law

About 55 years ago I learned at school that the opposite force of buoyancy or static updraft is gravity. I do not think this is correct but I am not quite sure because matter displaces space and the question is: What is space?

John A. Wheeler of Princeton University has calculated that the flux density of ZPE [Zero Point Energy in space] is of the order of 10^93 grams per cm^3.

Harold Aspden has calculated that the energy density of space, in terms of mass, is about 144 grams per cm^3. He describes in his book The Physics of Creation and in his other work that space consists of perfectly balanced positive and negative electric charges and particles, mainly leptons.

I am not sure if this is correct but if space has a higher energy density than matter, will not matter be squeezed together by the electric forces of space?

MGmirkin wrote: It's still not entirely clear exactly what the "magnetic field" *is* only what it *does.*

But we do sort of have an idea what an electric current (as opposed to an electric field) *is*.

In my opinion, electric current can also be seen as particles with spherical electric fields in motion which displace and therefore compress space radially outwards creating longitudinal (scalar) waves. Of course this is highly speculative and does not explain every aspect of the subject but, as I say, if you can't get forward on one road you have to try another one.

dpres wrote:In my opinion, electric current can also be seen as particles with spherical electric fields in motion

Regards, Dieter Preschel

Well, yes, I'd basically agree with the above bit. Electric charges are monopolar, if I recall correctly. As opposed to magnetic fields which are dipolar.

IE, the electric field of a charged particles supposedly radiates [or the vectors point] evenly in all directions.

Whereas magnetic fields seem to be dipolar, regardless of scale.

So, yes, I'd say that charged particles have basically spherical electric fields, and it's the motion of the charged particles (with spherical electric fields) that induces the magnetic field (perpendicular to the conventional current's direction of travel). Though what precisely the "magnetic field" is (as opposed to does), still seems elusive.

~Michael Gmirkin

"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke"For every PhD there is an equal and oppositePhD." ~Gibson's law